22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Truther]

Just another addition to the list, with its share of errors.

In your mind, the list of God failing to preserve His pure word for mankind unto this day.

 

[CadyandZoe]

In the rare times when the Premils who believe in that actually answer that question they say that the sacrifices will be performed in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice and things like that. But, where is that taught in scripture? Nowhere, of course.

To think that animal sacrifices will ever be reinstated is blasphemy. It's a horrible insult to Jesus Christ and what He accomplished on the cross almost 2,000 years ago.

Jesus was a Jew, and he didn't seem at all insulted by animal sacrifices. I mean, I think it's great and all that you want to protect the honor of the Lord, but if Jesus was not insulted by them when he was here the first time, why do you suppose he will be insulted by them when he returns the second time?

If you want to talk about false doctrine, let's focus on what is actually false. I am not teaching that God will institute another way to get saved, based on animal sacrifices. The sin offering was the prescribed ritual associated with atonement under the original covenant, which became a model for the permanent instantiation of atonement. Jesus Christ's blood on the cross is the permanent and perfect ritual of atonement by which all can be saved, both Jew and Gentile. The Lord commanded his disciples and Paul also commanded the Gentiles to drink the wine in remembrance of that milestone event. The Lord said, "This is the New Covenant in my blood."

Okay, now ask yourself why Paul felt free to practice his Judaism and why he felt free at other times to abstain. He tells us:

1 Corinthians 9:19-21

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.​

Here we understand Paul's position and standpoint with regard to Judaism. He felt free to behave like a Jew when it served the cause of Christ, and he felt free to behave as one without the law among the Gentiles when it served the cause of Christ. From this we can legitimately conclude that Judaism, as such, is not antithetical to the cause of Christ. If Paul felt free to practice his Judaism, then he would not object to other Christians that also feel free to practice Judaism. Messianic Jews come to mind.

All of that having been said, why do I think that the sacrificial system will be reinstituted during the Millennial kingdom? Although I believe that the sin offerings are no longer necessary for the cause of atonement and reconciliation, they might have another purpose. Namely, just as Paul practiced his Judaism for the statement it made, i.e. solidarity with his kinsmen, the sacrifices will be performed by the Levites for the statement they make during a time when God's purpose is to sanctify his holy name.

 

[CadyandZoe]

So, how was David saved? What was the basis of his salvation? What qualifies him for heaven? Is there salvation by some other means apart from the cross?

No, there is no other means by which to be saved. To understand how the OT saints are saved it is helpful to make a distinction between the basis of salvation and the means of salvation.

The basis of salvation has always rested on the contrition and honesty of the penitent. This was David's focus. Consider the following passages:

Psalms 32:1-2

How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,
Whose sin is covered!
How blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity,
And in whose spirit there is no deceit!​

And again

Psalms 51:16-17

For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
You are not pleased with burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.​

God will surely forgive on that basis. What David expresses is a particular attitude of the inner man. He has no deceit in his spirit. He has a broken spirit and a contrite heart. Those who have an honest self-assessment, know themselves to be sinners and seek God's mercy and forgiveness and God grants it to them under those conditions.

Nonetheless, as Paul points out in Hebrews 10, David was looking for another body, another sacrifice that would become the means by which he would be saved. And Paul argues that the body of Christ is the means by which we all find salvation. Both are essential and necessary for salvation: both the blood of Christ AND the proper inwardness.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Nowhere in the Old Testament did it say that cutting the throats of innocent animals in the age to come renders these Christ-rejecting religious actors "holy people." The verses you present do not say that. You are winging it again. You are manipulating Scripture to support your beliefs.

So you have nothing in the OT to support this and nothing in Revelation to say this. Do have anything elsewhere in the NT?

What is the purpose of these animal sacrifices in your supposed future millennium? Why will you not tell us?

Again, why did God institute them in the first place?

 

[WPM]

No, there is no other means by which to be saved. To understand how the OT saints are saved it is helpful to make a distinction between the basis of salvation and the means of salvation.

The basis of salvation has always rested on the contrition and honesty of the penitent. This was David's focus. Consider the following passages:

Psalms 32:1-2

How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,
Whose sin is covered!
How blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity,
And in whose spirit there is no deceit!​

And again

Psalms 51:16-17

For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
You are not pleased with burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.​

God will surely forgive on that basis. What David expresses is a particular attitude of the inner man. He has no deceit in his spirit. He has a broken spirit and a contrite heart. Those who have an honest self-assessment, know themselves to be sinners and seek God's mercy and forgiveness and God grants it to them under those conditions.

Nonetheless, as Paul points out in Hebrews 10, David was looking for another body, another sacrifice that would become the means by which he would be saved. And Paul argues that the body of Christ is the means by which we all find salvation. Both are essential and necessary for salvation: both the blood of Christ AND the proper inwardness.

So why did you rebuke me and say the following?

David did not embrace the cross by faith. You are making stuff up.

You are all over the place.

 

[WPM]

Again, why did God institute them in the first place?

I asked you. You tell me. You believe this. Answering a question with a question suggests you do not have any answer.

 

[WPM]

So, the question is, does the quoted passage explicitly deny or contradict a Millennial period? The answer is, no, it does not explicitly deny or contradict a Millennial Period. It all depends on what Jesus meant by "and."

Option A:
The age to come is populated exclusively by the resurrected from the dead. Not only are they considered worthy of taking part in the age to come, but they are also considered worthy of being resurrected from the dead.

Option B:
The age to come will be populated by two groups of people, 1) those who are considered worthy of the age to come and 2) among those who are considered worthy of that age stand those who are also worthy of resurrection.

Based on the text alone, I can't argue in favor of one option over the other. Both are equally plausible interpretations. For this reason, I could not argue that the statement denies or contradicts a Millennial period, which will witness a group of mortals, considered worthy of that age, standing along side a group of immortals also considered worthy of that age.

That is because of your misunderstanding and mis-location of one chapter in the most highly symbolic and obscure setting in Scripture. You interpret the rest of Scripture in the light of your faulty opinion of Revelation 20. Amillennialist do the opposite. They interpret Revelation 20 in the light of the repeated teaching of other Scripture.

 

[CadyandZoe]

So why did you rebuke me and say the following?



You are all over the place.

Are you saying that David knew about the cross?

 

[covenantee]

In your mind, the list of God failing to preserve His pure word for mankind unto this day.

In your mind, an object of idolatrous worship.

In their preface to the first KJV, the translators identified you as an adversary.

 

[CadyandZoe]

So why did you rebuke me and say the following?



You are all over the place.

Paul argues that David was expecting another "body", but there is no evidence that David understood that the Messiah would die on a cross.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I asked you. You tell me. You believe this. Answering a question with a question suggests you do not have any answer.

I know you asked me. I answered you. But you didn't answer me. Do you have an answer? Do you even understand the question?

Let me put it to you again.

1. Given that God established the sacrificial system.
2. Given that the blood of animals was never intended to take away sins,
3. Question, why then did God establish them?

Until you can answer that properly, you will never be able to understand why they will appear again in the Millennial kingdom. But more importantly, unless you reveal a sophisticated understanding of why they appeared in the original covenant, then you have no right to be critical of them. Period.

 

[CadyandZoe]

That is because of your misunderstanding and mis-location of one chapter in the most highly symbolic and obscure setting in Scripture. You interpret the rest of Scripture in the light of your faulty opinion of Revelation 20. Amillennialist do the opposite. They interpret Revelation 20 in the light of the repeated teaching of other Scripture.

Repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true. I wasn't talking about Revelation 20, was I? No. Why respond to a post if you have nothing to contribute to the subject at hand?

 

[WPM]

I know you asked me. I answered you. But you didn't answer me. Do you have an answer? Do you even understand the question?

Let me put it to you again.

1. Given that God established the sacrificial system.
2. Given that the blood of animals was never intended to take away sins,
3. Question, why then did God establish them?

Until you can answer that properly, you will never be able to understand why they will appear again in the Millennial kingdom. But more importantly, unless you reveal a sophisticated understanding of why they appeared in the original covenant, then you have no right to be critical of them. Period.

LOL. Here you go again! Why are you so uncomfortable with answering this question??? You are the one claiming animal sacrifices will be introduced in the future yet seem incapable of actually explaining why and what they achieve. Stop ducking around this. You are only exposing the foolishness of this idea.

It seems like your whole argument has came off the rails rather abruptly. Why am i not surprised?

 

[WPM]

Paul argues that David was expecting another "body", but there is no evidence that David understood that the Messiah would die on a cross.

The suffering servant revelation was an ongoing OT revelation to Israel from the Garden. It is seen in the ceremonial ritual. It is seen in the prophecies of the Moses and the prophets. David enjoyed that same hope. The degree of revelation is not the big issue, it is the existence of the revelation that matters. There is no salvation outside of the cross of Christ.

 

[CadyandZoe]

LOL. Here you go again! Why are you so uncomfortable with answering this question??? You are the one claiming animal sacrifices will be introduced in the future yet seem incapable of actually explaining why and what they achieve. Stop ducking around this. You are only exposing the foolishness of this idea.

It seems like your whole argument has came off the rails rather abruptly. Why am i not surprised?

I won't answer your question until you answer mine. Period.

 

[WPM]

I won't answer your question until you answer mine. Period.

Why are Premils so childish?

I didn't think you would because you cannot. Your promotion old covenant blood sacrifices again in the future is totally ridiculous and deeply anti-biblical. If you are so in love with them, why do you not start them now in your church? Why wait till some supposed future millennium to do so? Your position totally undermines the person and work of Jesus Christ. It is an invention in your head. It has no basis in Revelation 20 or anywhere else. You have yet to show any NT support.

 

[WPM]

LOL. Here you go again! Why are you so uncomfortable with answering this question??? You are the one claiming animal sacrifices will be introduced in the future yet seem incapable of actually explaining why and what they achieve. Stop ducking around this. You are only exposing the foolishness of this idea.

It seems like your whole argument has came off the rails rather abruptly. Why am i not surprised?

Animal sacrifices were a forward-pointing signpost to Calvary. They made atonement for Israel's sin. They cleansed the sinner. They covered the sin of God's people temporarily until the promise came. They sanctified the people of God. Then they were rendered redundant by the cross-work.

Hebrews 9:8-11 says, "while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building"

Whether you interpret the word "figure" as symbol is secondary, the fact is the old covenant and all its trappings is gone forever. The blood sacrifices simply pointed forward to Christ! All of the sacrifices, ceremonies, and methods of worship, which related to the law of commandments in the temple, were mere shadows of the reality that God provided in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ coming. These old covenant ordinances could never satisfactorily fulfil the eternal plan of God for mankind. This is seen in the fact that Jesus abolished these through His work on the cross. Everything was accomplished through Jesus' death. These Old Testament rites simply served as a shadow of Christ and His real and final sacrifice. All of these types came to an end at Calvary when the ancient covenant was completely fulfilled. The New Testament makes it very plain that the old covenant, including its temple ritual and its priesthood, pointed to a greater reality in Christ.

The Hebrew writer is constantly pointing the Jews away from the now worthless abolished old arrangement and towards Christ who is the fulfilment. Once the reality and substance came the type and shadow were rendered useless. Christ is the substance, the true and the real. Colossians 2:16-17 confirms: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

Hebrews makes it clear that the Old Testament sacrifices were a shadow of “good things to come” not ‘a millennial memorial of things that have already been’ as Premil requires.

By their very nature they looked forward to the cross in the old covenant.

To bring back the old covenant is to undermine the new covenant reality. I am suggesting that your location and interpretation of Ezekiel is in error and cannot be located after the cross that abolished sin offerings.

Christ has removed the whole purpose of animal sacrifices. They were simply a signpost to the cross. Hebrews 10:1-2 makes it perfectly clear, “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.”

Calvary completely finished the Old Testament shadow and type. That is why there is no more sacrifice for sin. I find your belief extraordinary. Honestly! This belief should not be allowed on an evangelical site. It is a direct assault upon the cross. It undermines the finished work of Christ. It abrogates the new covenant.

How will animal sacrifices atone for Israel's sin in your so-called future millennium? In what way?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Why are Premils so childish?

I didn't think you would because you cannot. Your promotion old covenant blood sacrifices again in the future is totally ridiculous and deeply anti-biblical. If you are so in love with them, why do you not start them now in your church? Why wait till some supposed future millennium to do so? Your position totally undermines the person and work of Jesus Christ. It is an invention in your head. It has no basis in Revelation 20 or anywhere else. You have yet to show any NT support.

Your comments about the sacrifices are not believable because you don't know anything about them. I'm not being childish. I'm being direct.

 

[WPM]

Your comments about the sacrifices are not believable because you don't know anything about them. I'm not being childish. I'm being direct.

You didn't even address my response (as is the Premil pattern). What part is incorrect?

I am getting weary of your private opinions and avoidance. That is all you seem to have. Show us hard Scripture that proves animal sacrifices are resurrected in your future millennium and show us what purpose they meet according to Scripture.

 

[marks]

Why are Premils so childish?

I didn't think you would because you cannot. Your promotion old covenant blood sacrifices again in the future is totally ridiculous and deeply anti-biblical. If you are so in love with them, why do you not start them now in your church? Why wait till some supposed future millennium to do so? Your position totally undermines the person and work of Jesus Christ. It is an invention in your head. It has no basis in Revelation 20 or anywhere else. You have yet to show any NT support.

You write like this, and call someone else childish?



Much love, and hope for you!